S. Fred Singer Article in The Hoover Digest

Plenty of evidence suggests that global warming is a hoax. Why
does no one care? S. Fred Singer explains.

When the issue is global warming, why bother about science?
Cynical politicians have already pronounced the science as settled, so they
can go ahead and negotiate. Like the good lawyers that they are, they simply
stipulate the scientific conclusions. No more research needed; the science is
"settled," "compelling"—or whatever; you scientists can now go away and let us
do our job. And for heaven’s sake, don’t come up with any new scientific facts
that could mess up our sandbox and ruin our fun.

WHY THE CHARADE?

So why this charade? Why do
politicians and others willfully ignore scientific data that contradict the
predictions from flawed computer models? After spending just a few frustrating
days at the Kyoto Climate Conference last winter, I have come up with several
answers.

First, there are the upper-middle-class overanxious, who are truly
concerned and don’t have any hidden agenda. We might be able to educate them
by presenting scientific facts and also informing them that the claimed
scientific consensus on global warming is a hoax. They might even agree that
nuclear energy, emitting no CO2, could be an answer worth pursuing.

Then there are the opportunists, who see the global warming
business as a chance for career advancement, political influence, bigger
budgets, more perks, or just more money. Lord knows, plenty of money is
available. The federal research budget for global change is around $2 billion
a year—and that keeps a lot of scientists and assorted academics in business,
say, studying the effect of a putative warming on the bee industry in Utah or
whatever. And by scaring people, the Green lobby has managed to achieve annual
budgets of more than a billion dollars, with their executives drawing
industrial-sized salaries. And why not pay a quarter-million bucks to someone
astute enough to recognize that global warming has become sexier than
protecting seal pups and dolphins?

Another group are the one-worlders. They favor an international
control regime—any international regime—as a way of building U.N. sovereignty
at the expense of national sovereignty. A climate protocol controlling the use
of energy would be the ultimate in central government control, requiring
reports to a U.N. authority, international inspectors, and international
sanctions—all controlled by nonelected and nonaccountable bureaucrats. It
would be the European Commission in spades—and a socialist dream.

Finally, and potentially the most dangerous, are the ideologues,
the New Age fanatics returning to paganism, worshiping the nature goddess
Gaia, calling for equal rights for all species, including animals and plants,
intent on saving the planet from the ravages of humanity.

PREACHING TO THE CHOIR

Just listen to the guru of
the new religion, Al Gore, preaching to the faithful in Kyoto. First, the
preamble: "We have reached a fundamentally new stage in the development of
human civilization . . . in the relationship of our species and our planet."
Then the punishment, backed up by vivid imagination and no science at all:
"The human consequences of failing to act are unthinkable. More record floods
and droughts. Diseases and pests spreading to new areas. Crop failures and
famines. Melting glaciers, stronger storms, and rising seas."

Then the utopian remedy—constructing a new man: "Our fundamental
challenge now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that
are causing the problem." And finally, the spiritual epilogue: "To do so
requires humility, because the spiritual roots of our crisis are pridefulness
and a failure to understand and respect our connections to God’s Earth and to
each other."